Talk:Chaos in optics
REVIEWER A
First of all, it seems that the review "Chaos in Optics" starts without an introduction to the topic. It seems strange to me to see it started by what it seems just a section "The many mode laser and space-time chaos (patterning)". I miss an introduction to the topic, giving an overview of the topic and indicating what is expected to read in the rest of the review.
In the subsection "longitudinal case with delay" the authors refer to subsection 3C and section 5C. It does not make any sense in the current version of the review. This should be corrected.
I suggest to stress the role of the Fresnel number in its connection to the transition to chaotic behavior.
In the section "Tranverse case", the sentence starting by "In a 2-dimensional (2-D) field," should be rewritten, since it is not clear enough.
In the section "Optical Chaos...", the first sentence is not finished. The authors explain all the terms of the equation, with the exception of the variable E.
In section "Mutual synchro...", I suggest that when citing references in the text, to follow the same style all throughout the review.
In the sentence "Particular attention has been devoted to synchronization ", I do not understand why the word "attention" has a link.
When refering to figures, it should be used always the same style, e.g., Fig. 5 and not fig. 5.
Puntuaction of the English should be carefully revised.
References at the end should follow the same style all of them. For instance: Nature 437, 343 (2005) and not Nature, 437, 343 (2005) or Nature (London) 437, 343 (2005).
As a summary, it seems that something is lacking from the beginning. One expects to read about Chaos in Optics, and the text only mentions some connections to chaotic behavior in laser and to the phenomenon of synchronization.
Author Meucci :
The Authors greatly thank Reviewer A for his accurate report. We completely agree on the fact that an introduction on the subject is missing. In the revised version an extended introduction has been added with the aim to make the paper self-consistent and autonomous as more as possible from the other contribution " Chaos in lasers". Also other sections have been deeply revised (longitudinal case,tranverse case, and optical chaos and patterns in passive devices) As fas as the other "minor" changes listed in his report, we carefully considered them in the revised version.
SECOND REVIEW A
In the new text concerning the introduction to the article there are some sentences that need to be revised carefully.
The sentence: "Deterministic chaos affects a dynamical system that has at least one positive Liapunov exponent. This fact requires a minimum of three coupled degrees of freedom; coupled means that the dynamics has to be nonlinear," should be rewritten, since as is written is not correct and even confusing.
(1) Deterministic chaos is a property of a dynamical system (2) The sentence "three coupled degrees of freedom" is not correct. What the authors should say is that for a continuous dynamical system chaos may occur only for a coupled nonlinear system of three degrees of freedom, or in other words, chaos might occur in a three dimensional continuous dynamical system, which mathematically can be written as three coupled nonlinear first order ordinary differential equations.
I suggest also that the sentence "Due to the fact that just three coupled degrees of freedom are sufficient for one positive Liapunov exponent, preliminary studies of chaos in optics had addressed single mode lasers (see Chaos in lasers). " be rephrased according to previous comments.
I recommend also that the whole text be revised for grammar corrections and punctuation. Many words should be written using capital letters instead of small letters appearing in the current version. Puntuaction of the English should be carefully revised.
In short, revising the form and the style would improve notable the quality of the article.
